1. Field of the Invention
Hunting equipment; sporting goods
2. Description of the Prior Art
Occasionally a descriptive term in this application may be shortened so as to recite only a part rather than the entirety thereof as a matter of convenience or to avoid needless redundancy. In instances in which that is done, it is intended that the same meaning be afforded each manner of expression. Thus, the term cradle emplacement peg (31) might be used in one instance but in another, if meaning is otherwise clear from context, expression might be shortened to emplacement peg (31) or merely peg (31). Any of those forms is intended to convey the same meaning.
The term attach or fasten or any of their forms when so used means that the juncture is of a more or less permanent nature, such as might be accomplished by nails, screws, welds or adhesives. Thus it is stated herein that the preferable connection of the lower portion of a cammed lever enwrapping clamp (81) to the lower of two conjoining segments (13) is one of attachment. A connection in which one object is easily removed from another is described by the word emplace, as where it is stated herein that a portion of the camera connection link (5) may be emplaced within the staff's bushing tunnel (17). A connection in which two objects, although not attached could be separated only with considerable difficulty is referred to herein as one of rigid emplacement. The fastening together of two staff segments (13) by a cammed lever enwrapping clamp (81) is stated herein to be such a connection. Employment of the words connector join or any of their forms is intended to include the meaning of any of those terms in a more general way.
The word comprise may be construed in any one of three ways herein. A term used to describe a given object is said to comprise it, thereby characterizing it with what could be considered two-way equivalency in meaning for the term. Thus, it is stated that the tight joints of an articulated linkage of accessory support (55) comprise a ball and socket series (56) of rotable hinges, meaning that the latter is in fact the former. The term comprise may also be characterized by what might be considered one-way equivalency, as when it is stated herein that in a given model of the subject matter hereof, three cammed thumb lever clamps (81) at the sectional juncture sites comprise the sectional connecting means (8), meaning that in the given instance, the three clamps (81) are themselves the means (8). This use of the word has a generic sense to it. That is, those clamps (81) will always be means (8); but means (8) might suitably be those members (81) only in one case but, something else in another. However, the word comprise may also be used to describe a feature which is part of the structure, composition or property of a given object. Thus, a preferable bow connection anchor (4) is said to comprise an elbowed, or L-shaped, rod (40). The meaning in the respective cases is clear from context, however. Accordingly, modifying words to clarify which of the three uses is the intended one seem unnecessary.
Terms relating to physical orientation such as top or bottom, upper or lower, upwards or downwards, refer to the positioning of a bow (100), firearm (200), camera (300), spotting scope (400)—a powerful telescopic instrument used to locate game at considerable distance—or any of the components thereof (100, 200, 300, 400) in the manner they (100, 200, 300, 400) would be typically oriented when held in use or supported in readiness; or otherwise, as shown in the drawings. Thus, a segmented (13) tubular staff (71, 72) is spoken of as providing a bottom segment (65) and an upper one (67). The lower portion of a cammed lever enwrapping clamp (81) is said to be configured to tightly retain the upper portion of the lower of two conjoining segments (713) but, under certain circumstances, enwrap the upper of the two (713) loosely. The staff (1) is similarly addressed in terms of its lower (11) and upper (12) ends. So, too, with the extremities of the ground spike (2) which in most other instances are identified by more specific functional names (22, 23, ante). Expressions in terms of longitudinality refer to an object in terms of its longest dimension.
The word co-axial herein is defined to mean with reference to two objects or elements that they share the same longitudinal axis. Thus, in preferred arrangements, the ground spike (2) is said to be co-axial with the staff (1) it (2) is connected to.
By definition herein, the term “transverse” or derivations thereof expressed relative to another structure means generally right angled—as with the configuration of the elbowed rod (40) addressed herein—as distinguished from a precise 90° angle.
The term reeve, or any of various forms thereof, is occasionally employed herein. It is stated, for example, that for interconnection purposes in certain prior art references, an elastic cord was reeved longitudinally through a staff's segments (713).
The terms bow (100) readiness support or firearm (200) readiness support as used herein addresses the aspect in which they (100, 200) are disposed to be quickly and easily picked up for use upon the approach of game. This meaning differentiates from placement in which the hunting implement is ready for immediate shooting—hereinafter identified as Type I modality, ante. The word stow is used to denote placement of a very temporary sort. Thus, to say that a bow (100) or firearm (200) is stowed, as opposed to being stored, would include the notion of emplacing either (100, 200) in readiness support, supra. In a related sense, the expression steadiness, in conjunction with a camera (300) or spotting scope (400), concerns the matter of picture taking or telescopic viewing without the occurrence of undue movement.
In that respect, certain other words may also occasionally be coined herein to simplify discussion by interchanging noun, verb or adjective or by modifying certain words. It takes little imagination to understand, for example, that the coined word turnable, expressed in connection with certain prior art control cranks or handles, derives from the word turn. So too, in the case of interconnective and forwardly. The words rotable and rotability are other examples of coining use denoting an object's capability of being turned without undue impediment within a seat it is disposed in, as opposed to suggesting a rapidly spinning behavior or some other sort of circular motion which might be addressed by the more cumbersome word rotatable. The adjective pivotal also represents rotable disposition. In a similar vein, the expression collapsibility derives from collapse and stowablity from stow. The term interthread and its derivations addresses the coengagement of mated threaded parts, a bolt and nut, for example. The word staff (1, 701) denotes an elongated or post-like structure. The term substitutive interchangeability is meant to express in a given novel scheme that one part or subassembly may be substituted for another for an alternative use, such as by substituting in emplacement an accessory connection link (5) for a bow connection anchor (4).
The term enwrapment, derived from enwrap, describes a physical relationship in which a given object is at least partially cloaked—or more specifically, wrapped up in—a second encompassing one.
Although adjustment schemes comprising set screw and aperture adjustment features (787, 789) are sometimes distinguished for purposes of discussion herein from those employing wing nuts or thumbscrews (788), they (787, 788, 789) are all so similar functionally that their (787, 788, 789) identifiers are occasionally interchanged. It does not appear that doing so is a factor material to patentability.
The word collapsible and its derivations is used herein to indicate an object's capability of being contracted in bulk to improve portability or stowability. As used herein, these words describe the manner in which an object or article comprising tubular elongation (71) comprises sections or segments (13) which slide together to some degree—one into another in what is herein termed rod and sleeve fashion, and that other, in turn, into yet another—so as to reduce total length. The expression telescope and its derivations have often been used in the art in a vague manner and for use in that connection are, therefore, eschewed herein. It is often unclear whether that term is meant to express that a first piece slides into a second one slightly or whether in its entirely; or whether the two pieces are fixed, one within the other, in immobility. It is thought the term may have been borrowed from that describing the sea-faring magnifying piece which so conveniently folded together concentrically. Employing instead with reference to tubular staff (71) configuration the terms derived from the root collapse should, it is hoped, obviate those vagueness difficulties.
Because even the word collapsible could, without more, denote either a partial or total condition or capability, the expression ultra-collapsibility is given to describe the latter case. Thus, an ultra-collapsible tubular staff (71) would permit its reduction to a very small size compared to its extended longitudinality such that, for example, a three-piece length is made to comprise no more than approximately that of one of its sections (13).
By definition herein, a bushing (16), even without more being said, comprises a socket or tunnel (17) and should be considered to comprise either of them (17) interchangeably. Moreover, when the disposition of a flange (14) is said to be circumferential, it is meant that it is the very rim of the tubular object (71) which comprises that configuration. And the term axial is relegated to an object's longitudinal dimension. The word tubular (71) includes elongated hollow structures having any one of a variety of cross sectional configurations. The term curvilinear includes those which are round, oval, ovoid and the like. Similarly, the cross sectional configuration expressed as rectangular (75) includes that which is squared (74).
Although remarks concerning the bow (100) are occasionally compounded as hunting bow (100), the matters therein presented are intended to apply interchangeably to those (100) used for archery, even though not explicitly so expressed.
To the extent any given prior art component comprises part of the subject matter hereof in combination, the same reference number might well have been assigned in each case. Where the number of such adopted components is substantial, however, identical reference number designation might prove confusing. Accordingly, throughout this disclosure, the reference number for any prior art feature or component shared by the subject matter hereof, though identical, is spoken of as having added 700 to it—that is, thereby raising the identifier to the 700s. In the main, this is merely a matter of written disclosure, except for the occasional inclusion of some of them in prior art renderings among the drawings. By way of this convention, then, the prior art reference for the ground spike hereof, “(2)”, is said to be “(702)”, that for the segmented staff “(13)”, as “(713)”, and so on.
Hunting stands, of course, sometimes comprised elaborate constructions wherein the framework itself provided more than enough support for bow (100), firearm (200), camera (300) or spotting scope (400). For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,012,439 issued to Woodruff featured a seating structure allowing for emplacement of a bow connection anchor (704) which, together with the bow (100), could be lifted for use in Type IV modality, ante. U.S. Pat. No. 6,547,685 B1 issued to Taylor comprised a rack-like construction against which either a bow (100) or firearm (200) could be lain and extracted for use in that same way. As we shall see, however, stable as they might be for supporting purposes, the provision of cumbersome structures of that sort is not among the objectives hereof.
In considering an assembly for readiness bow (100) support, or photographic steadiness for a camera (300) or spotting scope (400), it is instructive to examine and, perhaps, borrow some of the sisterhood features of firearm (200) aiming supports.
The forcing of a pointed ground spike (702) into the underlying soil (500), for example, is extensively addressed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,740,625 issued to Jenkins and references reported therein. The feature (702) enabling that undertaking was often adopted for reasons of reliability and simplicity whether or not it (702) was embellished with a foot thruster (725). One of the versions of the cited Narvaez reference, ante, comprised a ground spike (702) wisely inverted for stowage within a segmented (713) tubular staff (771).
In that connection, reliance upon a monopod staff (701) whose bulk might be of take-apart configuration or otherwise collapsible for purposes of stowage and portability echoes from the past with resonance at least equally respectable to that of the ground spike (702), foot thruster (725) and other adoptive features. The Jenkins patent and many of those cited there were no exceptions to that oft-followed trend toward convenient collapsibility.
A Narvaez model, ante, for example, featured among the Jenkins references, employed either a snap-fit spring loaded beach umbrella type connector or an interthreading ring for height adjustment. The assemblies of Jeranek, Canterbury, Sr., Fritschka, Parker and Helmstadter comprised set screw (787) adjustment connectors. Uhl's collapsible sections (713) were unitized by a twist-together series of slot and pin fittings.
In Kramer and Underwood, the segments (713) were interconnected by an elastic cord reeved through them (713) longitudinally. Webster, ante, presented external spring laden friction clamps for interconnection. Groba's connector used a similar frictional principle and, the tubular (771) sections (713) were simply, but cleverly, configured with flanged connective ends (714) specifically comprising mutually engaging turned annular beads—a simple technique well worth adopting—to keep the pieces from merely falling apart from each other, ante.
The most pertinent Jenkins references comprise U.S. Pat. No. 879,052 issued to Jeranek; U.S. Pat. No. 1,112,732 issued to Uhl; U.S. Pat. No. 1,147,890 issued to Purcell; U.S. Pat. No. 1,456,304 issued to Fritschka; U.S. Pat. No. 2,690,211 issued to Wentz; U.S. Pat. No. 3,156,062 issued to Stevenson, et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 3,584,821 issued to Glebe; U.S. Pat. No. 3,576,084 issued to Anderson, Jr.; U.S. Pat. No. 4,007,554 issued to Helmstadter; U.S. Pat. No. 4,089,423 issued to Gorham; U.S. Pat. No. 4,481,964 issued to Minneman; U.S. Pat. No. 4,676,021 issued to Groba; U.S. Pat. No. 4,854,066 issued to Canterbury, Sr.; U.S. Pat. No. 4,882,869 issued to Webster; U.S. Pat. No. 4,913,391 issued to Klipp; U.S. Pat. No. 4,937,965 issued to Narvaez; U.S. Pat. No. 4,972,619 issued to Eckert; U.S. Pat. No. 5,180,874 issued to Troncoso, Jr.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,194,678 issued to Kramer; U.S. Pat. No. 5,311,693 issued to Underwood; U.S. Pat. No. 5,481,817 issued to Parker.
There was, of course, a line of development belonging solely to the bow (100), ostensibly having nothing to do with any firearm (200) support. A suitable prop for a bow (100) permitted putting it (100) aside in readiness so that the hunter remained unencumbered by its (100) awkward, cumbersome bulk while awaiting the arrival of game. Under most practical circumstances, hunting bows (100), particularly the modern ones (100), are too heavy to be actively attended in a position poised for the shot. From what we see in the art, we may consider arrangements for the bow's (100) use in relation to its (100) standard or support as one of four sorts.
A Type I modality is one in which the bow's (100) connection to the support is usually one either of attachment or rigid emplacement, as those terms are defined herein, supra, as might be the case where the arrow is merely discharged from a ready-to-shoot posture or, at least, something closely approximating it. While arrangements of that sort have been more appropriate for firearm (200) use, in the few instances in which they were suggested, they had to have compromised bow (100) use or convenience in portability. There, readiness stowability would have been provided at the expense of shooting accuracy and convenience.
A Type II scheme permits picking up the bow (100) from its (100) moorings but only after undertaking significant manipulative efforts—unfettering well secured connections and the like. That arrangement, unfortunately, has entailed an unwanted time lapse for game to escape while getting set for shooting and often has not been as quiet in operation as desired.
In Type III, the bow (100) could be picked up for use but only with all or a significant portion of the standard along with it (100). It was understandably thought better to bear a little extra weight and bulk while shooting than frighten away the game by unsnapping clamps or binders.
A Type IV construction involves merely the picking up of an emplaced bow (100) such that it (100) is entirely free of any part of the support or at most, carries along a very small portion of it. Those have been the most preferred of the lot. Even so, the looseness of their connections often subjected them to risk of unsteadiness on difficult terrain or perhaps to dislodgment by too stiff a breeze.
But means of readiness stowability is but one criteria for comparison. Whether for firearm (200) or bow (100) operation, portability has always been-a significant factor. Any hunting kit which can be collapsed within itself—“telescoped”, as some vaguely say for sectional constructions (713)—will invariably have an edge over one wherein that capability is absent. Packing and carting a fully extended staff (701) in a rack atop an automobile or within its trunk, while plausible, is too cumbersome an undertaking for the likes of most hunters. A spiked (702) assembly makes the task just that much more difficult.
Important patents following the bow (100) support line were U.S. Pat. No. 5,106,044 issued to Regard III; U.S. Pat. No. 3,991,780 issued to Maroski, Jr.; U.S. Pat. No. 1,851,779 issued to Slater; U.S. Pat. No. 3,584,820 issued to Butcher, Sr.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,619,981 issued to Breedlove; and U.S. Pat. No. 4,846,140 issued to DiMartino.
The Regard III assembly comprised three-point support, the contact with the ground (500) by the bottom tip of the bow itself (100) counting for one of them. Whatever objections some have voiced concerning ground (500) contact by the bow (100) because of imagined potential for damage—say, to a bowstring reel usually disposed at that low extremity in the modern hunting implements—the additional stability afforded thereby without the inclusion of additional apparatus evinces cleverness in design. The other two support sites were provided by a pair of flexible leg-like extensions which could be gathered against the bow (100) and snapped in place when the bow (100) was picked up for use. By reason of the manipulation required, the assembly demonstrated Type II configuration; but by reason of the keeping together of the entire assembly—however compacted and light in weight-indicated also that of Type III. The grounded (500) bow (100) and bendable legs of the assembly primarily of focus in U.S. Pat. No. 6,205,992 B1 issued to Meeks, et. al. appear to have wisely followed the Regard III lead.
The Maroski, Jr. assembly featured, among other things, two-point support upon a two-piece (713) ground spiked (702) tubular staff (771) adjustable in height by means of a wing nut (788) and a series of spaced holes (789) therein (771). The assembly illustrated a Type IV configuration in that the bow's (100) curvature permitted it (100) to rest delicately against two supportive sites disposed along the length of a ground-spiked (702) staff (701). Because of the looseness of its (100) stowage, it is doubtful the bow (100) would have endured a strong wind. For that contingency, the assembly also comprised an attached rope which might have been tied to a tree branch or other anchoring site (550).
Slater also provided Type IV configuration wherein the bow (100) rested horizontally upon a shelf borne by a ground spiked (702) staff (701). While there were no impediments to its (100) removal for shooting—as with Maroski, Jr.—the arrangement must have lacked stability in the face of the elements.
Butcher, Sr., featured three-point retention upon a staff (701) vaguely suggested to be adjustable in height by a set screw (787) and collar combination. Removal of the bow (100) required working it (100) out of a ring-like retention yoke, thereby evincing the less preferred Type II configuration. One of the models comprised a ground spike (702).
The DiMartino ground spiked (702) assembly comprised for a connection mechanism a turnable handle similar to that used to open and close a tool-bench vise. The necessity for manipulation upon release portrayed Type II modality.
Although the “preferred embodiment” mentioned in Breedlove is touted to permit height adjustment by reason of “telescopic” and “lockable” features, specific details are wanting both in his drawings and written disclosure. The 22 page patent focuses primarily upon a pivoting elbow to which a longitudinal extension doubles for use either as a vertically oriented bow (100) support or a horizontally projecting stabilizing rod (402). Practicality may have, therefore, dictated some obtuseness concerning height adjustment and collapsible capabilities. After all, several unremarkable alternative tube (771) clamping mechanisms then known included the set screw (787) or wing nut (788), with or without threaded apertures (789); the snap-fit spring loaded button and receptor hole configuration found in lawn and beach umbrellas; and a threaded ring connection vaguely suggested in the first of the drawings. The model presented sans ground spike (702)—that almost exclusively addressed therein—surprisingly, but necessarily, portrays Type III configuration wherein the bulk thereof is removed from an anchored socket for shooting. In a variation comprising the ground spike (702), however, the assembly remains fixed for use in Type I modality. Aside from that, however, the patent admirably addresses the oft-overlooked difficulty of want of sufficient space between the forwardly displaced curvature of the bow (100) and the support, recognizing that the limbs of modern bows (100) are formed with sufficient convexity to interfere with most standards unless some provision is taken to address the matter. Certainly, any support which attaches to a bow (100) should do so at a site thereon (100) which provides the required clearance; or at least provide a stabilizing rod (402) or similar structure which allows for the clearance. Because a bow's anchoring well (401) provides such a convenient connection site for the support, its (401) optimal placement constitutes an important matter to acknowledge in bow (100) manufacture.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,029,643 B1 issued to Golfieri illustrated Type IV modality wherein a projection from an aimed and handheld bow (100) was disposed to merely rest upon a set screw (87) and threaded aperture (89) height adjusting arrangement. The arrangement there, however, merely assisted the shooting operation, providing no capability at all for independent readiness stowability.
In U.S. Pat. No. 6,059,240 issued to Gorsuch, a Type IV support system wherein the bow (100) was merely lifted from a hanger for use, featured a length adjusting scheme similar to those discussed supra for lawn umbrellas and even then, only for horizontal longitudinality. Additionally, the tubular configuration (771) was of squared (774) rather than cylindrical (772) cross section.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,070,569 issued to Chalin, et. al., a Type IV system also, boasts a “unique” system for collapsible tubular interconnectibility, employing what is described as an “internal locking mechanism”. However, because of drawing conventions undertaken which are non-traditional to patent presentation, specific details appear to be vague or wanting altogether. A series of off-center circular renderings suggest a circularly bent leaf spring camming operation. Those may have been intended to reflect in combination known prior art mechanisms rather than any construction of novelty. A system of cylindrical tube (771) staff segment (713) interconnection by means of the joining feature suggested would, indeed, be useful. Although the use of the term “telescopic” and the illustrated diameter of respective segments (713) suggest the capacity to slide one thereof (713) into another (713), the extent to which that is possible is not explained. Thus, while it would be theoretically possible for the assembly to comprise what is defined herein as ultra-collapsibility, that is not entirely clear.
Reliance upon the historical firearm (200) supports, supra, provides yet another useful avenue of pursuit. Where they are concerned, the cradle (703) has been one of their near-essential ingredients. A reference encompassing not only that (703) but other features pertinent hereto is U.S. Pat. No. 5,913,667 issued to Smilee. That assembly illustrates three-point support for a rifle (200) and comprises a ground spike (702), foot thruster (725), two in-line cradles (703) and a two-section (713) tubular staff (771) comprising set screw (788) and aligned threaded receptor holes (789). Because of the respective segment (713) lengths, the arrangement does not qualify as ultra-collapsible but does permit partial contraction. The unit is constructed to allow respective parts thereof to pivot together for stowage.
The cradle (703) may also be found in abundance under the Jenkins references, supra. It (703) is part of the Narvaez assembly, for example, wherein azimuth settings may be changed by turning a handle and those for height, by manually effected pin and aperture connections. That (703) provided by Jeranek is suggested as having rotable emplacement. Glebe provided a fold-up version (703) retained in place upon the staff (701) by acentric principles. In Purcell, the firearm (200) was cradled merely upon a hand-held coil spring (703). The cradle (703) in Webster was well designed in allowing for rotable emplacement of an accessory connection link (705) within it (703).
The modern bow (100), however, is generally provided with cradle-like configuration at the site thereon (100) the arrow is emplaced for release and flight. When using even the more traditional one (100), however, the arrow has been steadied merely upon the operator's grasping fist. One would not, therefore, expect to find a bow (100) supporting assembly dedicated to dual use—bow (100) stowage under some circumstances and firearm (200) aiming support under others. Absent special arrangements, a firearm cradle (703) would seem to have just gotten in the way.
Along the way, it also became apparent that once an acceptable staff (701) had been devised, it (701) might, if appropriately configured, double also as an accessory connection link (705). A camera (300) and a spotting scope (400) are each generally configured with a threaded well (301) at their (300, 400) respective undersides within which various tripods or other supportive standards may interthread for attachment. Thus, the uppermost portion of Webster's segmented staff (713), supra, provided an accessory connection link (705) comprising the usual threaded accessory connecting sector (758) at its accessory connecting end (751) and a rotable emplacement end (752) for its (705) connection to the staff (701).
The challenge in accessory (300, 400) supporting arrangements is to provide some means of maneuverability to the support by which the accessory's (300) angular position might be selectively controlled. These are identified herein in the generic sense as positional adjustment axis support means (53, 753). More specifically, for example, accessory supports at prior art sometimes comprised a protractor-like arrangement (54) for adjustment in a vertical plane. Ideally, easily manipulated accessory (300) adjustment in any of the three dimensions is, by far, that most preferred. There are jointed bendable solid composition linkages used for certain industrial purposes—such as to control the jet of a coolant for cutting tools, ante—which provide the sought-after flexibility. The legs in one embodiment of the Meeks, et. al. reference, supra, suggest another, although its specific configuration is not clearly disclosed therein.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,315,256 B1 issued to Tolar functionally coupled a dual-function firearm cradle (703) with a horizontally rotable camera (300) support. More interestingly, for connection to a rod-like extension, cammed peripheral clamping means—somewhat resembling an oil filter wrench—are shown which potentially have application to a segmented tubular staff (713).
As one will observe supra, the holding together of a tubular staff's (771) sectional components (713) has always presented a challenge. There has emerged from the art, however a mechanism—available in various sizes—capable of tightly housing the ends of the respective tubular (771) segments (713) in opposition, holding them (713) firmly in place end-to-end, and then providing a situs—a cammed clamp sector (82) comprising for the camming action a clearance opening (84)—a window within which a hinged (83) cammed lever clamp (81) is made to bear down peripherally upon the end of a respective one of them (713). The clamp (81) is disposed at each interconnective junction between segments (713).
Thus, two tubular segments (713) can be longitudinally fixed together. The interior of the clamp (81) is configured in size to accommodate the respective diameters of the segments (713). The lower portion of the clamp (81) is configured to enwrap the upper portion of the lower conjoining segment (713) snugly, preferably by means of attachment. The upper portion of the clamp (81) is configured to loosely enwrap the upper segment (713) when camming action is not applied but retain it (713) snugly when it is. Where segments (713) comprise successively larger diameters from top to bottom such that the first at the top slide into a second and the second into a third and so on, to effect a proper fit, the interior of the upper end of each clamp (81) is accordingly made smaller than the interior of the lower end.
Without further undertaking, when a clamp (81 is loosened, there is nothing to impede or restrict interconnecting lengths (13, 713) from merely sliding apart from one another. The industry deals with this matter in various ways-factoring detents, small catch-knobs or providing other configurational solutions for respective parts. A satisfactory technique, which one may observe upon inspection, is to configure the inside of the clamp (81) with a stop and then merely form at the lower end of the upper of two segments (13, 713) a rim or circumferential widening—or what is designated herein a sectional flare or flange (714). As it turns out, the inevitable inner diameter ridge resulting from hollowing out a portion of the clamp (81) in preparation as a seating site for the tube's (771) end is suitable for double service as the stop. By way of definition herein, a cammed lever enwrapping clamp (81) inherently and necessarily comprises a stop. The flanged lip (14) is made small enough to permit forcing the segments (13, 713) together. Yet, it (14) is made large enough to provide substantial friction between them (13, 713) once joined. With this fairly close tolerance fit, it is observed that a forceful tug is required to pull the flanged end (14) of one segment (13, 713) out of the other (13, 713).
To cast the achieved situation in more formal terms, it is sufficient to say that it is feasible to arrange a plurality of interconnective tubular staff segments (13, 713), configured in progressive rod and sleeve fashion wherein the segments (13, 713) may be co-axially collapsed within one another (13, 713), narrowest to widest, the lowest comprising the widest, or may conversely be co-axially extended from within one another (13, 713), widest to narrowest, each of two conjoining segments (13, 713) being interconnected by a cammed lever enwrapping clamp (81); and the lower connective end of each conjoining segment (13, 713) comprising a rim flanged (14) sufficiently to impede its (13, 713) upward withdrawal beyond the clamp's (81) stop. Operation of the camming lever—a thumb lever (85) in a clamp (81) comprising one (85) or the handheld lever in a handgrip assembly (86), ante—by causing the cam to impose impingement prevents disconnection of the conjoined segments (13, 713). Release of the thumb lever (85) or that of a handgrip assembly (86), ante, permits extension by withdrawal of one segment (13, 713) from another at least to the stopping point for the flange (14).
The segments (13, 713) may, as suggested supra, be pulled out in extension however far desired to achieve a particular staff (1) length—that is, all of the way out or instead, to any intermediate point. Once so adjusted, they (13, 713) are again held firmly in place by what is characterized herein as sectional connecting means (708), of which the cammed lever enwrapping clamp (81) discussed supra is but one example, albeit the most preferred one. While such means (708) may, for example, comprise snap-fit arrangements, such as provided for a beach umbrella, those are relatively expensive to make and their springs subject to tension wear. The means (708) may also alternatively comprise an assembly clamp of the set screw (87) or thumb screw (88) variety with threaded apertures (89), supra, but those are vexed by difficulties of their (87, 88) own. The cammed thumb lever enwrapping clamp (81), supra, disposed at each connection point between segments (13, 713) is preferred, particularly one comprising a thumb lever (85).
The cammed lever enwrapping clamp (81) is known in two forms. The first is a handgrip cam assembly (86), wherein the lever operated to lower the cam comprises a handgrip type handle which extends longitudinally along the segmented staff (13, 713). The hinge (83) is disposed transversely to the staff's (13, 713) longitudinality. The second and more preferred form is the more compact variety comprising a clamp thumb lever (85) and in those, the cam hinge (83) is disposed parallel to the staff's (13, 713) longitudinality.
In recognition of the instability of the upwardly projected modern bow (100) when poised for shooting, allowances have been made in the art to deal with its (100) weight and configuration. Specifically, a stabilizing rod (402) has been attached in front and configured to serve as a counterweight (404). Connection has been made by means of interthreading a bolt-like extension upon the rod (402) with a threaded cavity (403) in the bow itself (100). However, the counterweight (404) has never been considered absolutely essential to the bow's (100) use and it was quickly recognized that the cavity (403) provided a suitable connection situs also for a readiness support assembly.
In another vein wherein no ground spike (702) was employed, U.S. patent issued to Lubrecht devised an appendage comprising a bolt-like threaded rod (792) transversely attached to the bow's disconnected stabilizing rod (402) so that it (792) could be cranked, using the stabilizing rod (402) as the handle, to screw it (792) into a tree or other supporting structure (550). Afterwards, the stabilizing rod (402) was interthreaded with the bow's stabilizing rod threaded cavity (403) to provide the bow a horizontally (709) anchored site comprising of stowage in Type II modality.
It is tempting to wonder whether most of the offered devices were really new at all with respect to their forerunners. Certainly, there seems to have been an overabundance of game awaiting or game readiness gadgetry. Some credit, perhaps, derived from the hunting traditions so long an honored part of our history. But it was probably more the manner in which the parts were fitted and held together than the assembled structure itself which conferred patentable novelty upon those numerous variations on a common theme. And, undoubtedly, there still remains plenty of room for more. Surely, hunting will always endure and the provision of innovative tools to undertake it, always be welcomed.
It would also be useful if a readiness stowage assembly were provided which not only dependably accommodates the bow (100), the firearm (200), the camera (300), the spotting scope (400) or any other suitable accessory by substitutive interchange, but which permits the bow (100) to be picked up immediately from its stowage site and operated without the encumbrance of additional weight—that is, in Type IV modality. To be sure, the longstanding insistence upon firearm (200) support functionality, if only for its (200) own sake, should not be disregarded. Beyond that, however, the provision of rotability for both bow (100) and firearm (200) readiness would be of great value in orienting the assembly toward a point from which game might be expected to emerge. Camera (300) steadiness for picture taking and spotting scope (400) steadiness for telescopic viewing, on the other hand, without having to rely upon a tripod arrangement, should also be provided for in the same assembly. By the same token, a suitable flexible view framing means should be included which retains the angular position to which it is brought—something superior to the pivotable plane, or protractor-like structures (54) so common to picture taking and scope viewing supports of the past. Safety from spike (702) impalement injury and unwanted damage should be a factor. Most of all, the entire assembly should comprise ultra-collapsibility—say, for example, a ground spiked (702) unit capable of collapsing down to a pocket sized pack less than a third its extended length.
In its own context, the historical development has done well in addressing deep-seated needs and objectives related to readiness stowability support use. It is now time, however, to combine the fruits of those past efforts in a more innovative way than has thus far been undertaken to address needs and objectives emanating in part even from them.